Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

"All of the hippie ideals in the world won't take care of Bobby's kids after he's gone ...$ will"

I get that they want to continue, and have the right, to make as much money as they cqan off their product, and I'm not here to debate that issue. This particular argument, however, does not hold water..

Do you really think that Bob, unless he is truly horrible with money management, will ever have to worry about feeding his kids, sending them to school or taking care of them through adulthood? Even if he never makes another dime, with the kind of money that he has made over the years, the first descendants he needs to worry about feeding are maybe his great-grandchildren or even later on down the line. All the original band-members have made "generational" income that should, unless they or their descendants squander it, last at least 2 or 3 generations and more if they take care of the family fortune.

Call it capitalism, entrepreneurialism (sp?), the joy of making money or whatever you want, but don't try to make a case for financial hardship or concern. At the turn of the century his great-grandchildren will have a portrait of him over the mantlepiece and they will conduct a toast to his memory every year on his birthday. I only hope he's not wearing his short-shorts in the painting.

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2010-08-16 17:13:36

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

how do YOU know his financial situation? Are you his accountant or something

to me it just seems lame to question the motives of the most generous band in history. And as usual it's ONLY Weir that takes shit

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

I was just replying to this post about Weir, and I included all of the band members in my comment. To be fair, Bob was the one who made the original comment about sending his kids to school when the SBDs were, first withdrawn and then made only available for streaming. He brought up the subject of finances.

I don't know his financial situation,and I did leave open the possibility that he (and the others) may have pissed that fortune away. I do know that Jerry left an estate worth over $160,000,000 15 years ago, and while he, obviously, was worth a lot more than the others with his outside concerns, the others were probably worth, I don't know, maybe half of that. Add on the last 15 years of income and you have folks who are not going to have to worry about their children's financial well-being.

Personally, I am not worried that these guys, or their kids, are going to be in line at the soup kitchen any time soon, are you??

This post was modified by Purple Gel on 2010-08-16 16:14:26

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelleyPA Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

His estate was actually more like $10 million, but who's counting? (and/or looking up probate records!)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

i don't think it's anybody's business to give a shit. Makes people come off like those idiot protestors in Festival Express. Seriously, check out the comments of Jerry and Bob even then. Don't think they were a big fan of the entitlement mentality. Man that band gave me tons of value for my money,why the hell should i begrudge them if they're loaded now?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

Again, I was just talking about the validity of the "he needs to feed his kids" type of argument. I also said that it is their right to make money off their product. This is America, after all, and if we're not about opportunity and making money, then what are we about? By all means, go for it, make as much money as you want, just don't complain to me that these guys are hurting financially.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

you know what I think? I think you DO have an axe to grinde about the whole deal and are just using this one example to nit pick. What if he had just come out and said - it's our music, we'll do whatever the fuck we want with it, and I can't stand those whiny ass moochers with their stupid ass finger in the air asking for their free handouts? Seriously, would all this then be a non issue?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

Wow, I must have hit a nerve.

Hey, you can speculate all you want about my motives, but I don't know how much clearer I can be about my opinion that they have the right to make as much money as they want off their product.

I'll say it again, they have the right to make all the money in the world. I don't begrudge anyone the right to make as much money as they can. If I had the opportunity to make that kind of money, I would jump at it. I still stand by my statement that the argument (and ONLY the argument) that they are hurting financially is bogus.

I'll shutup now.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

well the nerve you hit ( other than I don't like this tired ass topic ) is that i don't buy you jumping on just ONE example of this to argue because I've also seen you argue another point against why you thought they shouldn't have pulled the SBD's or how you felt slighted by it. My point is it's nobody's business to really have much of any opinion on what they do with what's theirs.

Don't get me wrong Purple Gel, I don't lump you in with the peice of shit that wrote that review but I have seen you make other arguements against. Besides, the one comment you picked out to argue was really just a little blurb or example and is really irrelevant to the greater picture so it is a little suspect imo.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Aug 16, 2010 4:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

http://www.archive.org/post/310870/5-15-time-is-short

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 4:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

yeah. exactly but also there's this comment

" These days, the only thing I pay for w/ these guys is for shows, where they are creating music in front of me, and I can re-connect with old friends.'

so you're pissed and wont buy anything but say you have more than you can listen to already BUT not pissed enough to not go see them?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Yawn....

http://www.archive.org/post/49553/good-news-and-an-apology-gd-on-the-internet-archive

Bob in another comment:
The archive.org situation a year ago caused a great deal of commotion with a lot of passionate feelings being expressed. Looking back on it, is there anything that you'd like to share about what happened? Would you have done anything differently?

I've learned a lot from that. For instance, I learned that if we're going to go to the effort and expense of making a record that we have to be able to market it some way. We haven't really figured it out yet, but we're going to have to do that soon. If we're going to go through the effort and expense of making a record, we're going to need to at least get our money back out of it.

Did you expect such a backlash when you guys went the route you did?

I think for the most part that was your stock standard typical, very vocal minority. People were just not content to deal with the fact that a musician needs to make a living...

...that what you have is proprietary at the end of the day.

Right. They had no respect for intellectual property whatsoever. The musicians' needs are not being met. There's this myth that information has to be free. That was the big rallying cry back a year ago, and I don't buy that. It doesn't make sense. There is no way you can make it make sense, and I debated this with people who are big time web/internet blowhards who claim to know the situation inside and out. But, they don't know the situation legally and they don't know the situation morally
www.jambase.com/Articles/9614/...WITH-BOB-WEIR/2 -

[Bluedevil edit; not Bob}
What would Jerry do?

Take another hit and pass the buck to let someone else make the decision....

Some dude rants:
http://www.jambands.com/of-note/2005/11/29/letter-to-the-editor-grateful-dead-soundboards

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Yawn....

"... debated this with people who are big time web/internet blowhards who claim to know the situation inside and out"

Hey, he's reading our stuff!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Yawn....

Yea, but I took that as a comment directed to his old pal Barlow.

From New York Times:
Downloads of the Dead are Not Dead Yet
By JESSE FOX MAYSHARK
Published: December 1, 2005
In the face of anger among its fans and divisions within the band itself, the Grateful Dead on Wednesday said it was reconsidering its decision to disallow downloads of the band's concert recordings from a large Internet archive.

With more than 4,200 signatures on an online petition calling for a boycott of Grateful Dead products - from tie-dyed T-shirts to kitsch [THAT IS THE OPERATIVE WORD] emblazoned with the band's dancing bear and skeleton icons - the band's spokesman said the members were still working out an official position on the controversy.

"The band has not fully made up its mind," the spokesman, Dennis McNally, said. "Things have already changed, and God only knows if they'll change some more."

Phil Lesh, the band's bass player, posted a statement on his own Web site (phillesh.net) on Wednesday, saying he had not known that band representatives the week before Thanksgiving had asked the operators of the Live Music Archive (archive.org) to stop allowing downloads of Grateful Dead concerts. "I do feel that the music is the Grateful Dead's legacy and I hope that one way or another all of it is available for those who want it," he wrote.

John Perry Barlow, one of the band's lyricists, said he had had a "pretty heated discussion" on Tuesday with Bob Weir, the Dead guitarist and singer, over the extent of the restrictions.

Before the death of Jerry Garcia, a founding member, ended its active career a decade ago, the Grateful Dead had pioneered the practice of allowing fans to record and circulate tapes of its concerts. So its attempted restriction of digital file-sharing felt to many Deadheads like a betrayal.

The band asked the archive to completely remove copies of live recordings made directly from concert soundboards - which are the legal property of the band but often leak into mass circulation - and to make audience recordings available only for listening, not downloading.

The Live Music Archive is a free library of recordings, some made by fans at concerts and others by artists themselves. According to its written policies, recordings are posted only with the permission of the artists.

The move not only created an uproar among the band's devoted fans; it also exposed divisions among factions within its extended family, which have often disagreed over the band's business philosophy.

Perhaps no one was more conflicted than Mr. Barlow, a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that has fought multiple court cases in behalf of freedom of information on the Internet.

Mr. Barlow said he agreed that soundboard recordings should be restricted, but he said fans should continue to be free to circulate their own tapes, as they have for years.

Mr. Barlow said the blanket request to the Live Music Archive was driven by Mr. Weir and the band's drummers, Mickey Hart and Bill Kreutzmann. "It was almost as if they had just discovered it was happening, even though it's been online for at least three years," he said.

But there was also some question as to how explicit the band's permission had been in allowing files to be placed in the Live Music Archive to begin with. Mr. Barlow said the band had had a policy since 1997 that "we had no more problem with someone digital file sharing than we had with tape sharing." He said he had relayed that policy to operators of the archive when they contacted him.

"I said that, given that's our policy, I don't see a problem," Mr. Barlow said. But, he acknowledged, he had also feared that a request for explicit permission from the band's corporate entity might get snarled in band politics - which seemed to be the case this week.

Steve Bernstein, the publisher of Relix magazine, which began in the 1970's as an outlet for Deadhead tape trading, said the split reflected the band's current position. Although the surviving members still sometimes play together as the Dead, he said, their most reliable income comes from new releases of old concert recordings. So their avid file-sharing fans are now also their competitors.

Mr. Barlow said the band's other primary lyricist, Robert Hunter, did not wish to get involved in the public debate but supported his position. But the lyricists are not full voting members of the band, and given the apparent 3-1 split among the four surviving performing members in favor of disallowing the downloads, Mr. Barlow said he was not sure how the issue would play out.

In the meantime, the online forums at the Live Music Archive had plenty of outrage, but also a little sympathy. "This action demonstrates a very great lack of generosity on their part, as well as fundamental marketing miscalculation," one person wrote, speculating that people who trade recordings are likely to find other sources rather than buy the band's official releases.

But some veteran tape traders urged consideration for the band and a return to the days of sending tapes and discs through the mail. "Thing is, for all these faux pas, GD are still megaparsecs beyond the best of the other rockers," one wrote.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

I so agree. Phil's sons went to Stanford and Princeton if I'm recalling correctly. I'm guessing they didn't go on scholarship or work-study. Why is Bob consistently singled out for so-called "greed."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Purple Gel Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

Probably because Bob, in an interview with KBCO in Boulder in 2005, brought up being able to send his kids to school as a reason for withdrawing the SBD's in the first place. I have never seen any of the others discuss their finaces in public.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

seems pretty f-ing obvious to me that that is just an example of the greater picture.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: woodstock (non peanuts related)

Yeah. Or else some people are just too stupid to figure out that Phil's kids and Bill's kids and Mickey's kids etc. all went to school too. Yes it must be all Bob Weir's fault.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I am not sure I am following the thread to this point. And up front, I have no problem with someone in a band saying exactly what Bob said in 05 & 06, BUT I do grant that others might view it as "counter" to the perception of what they represented in the 60s...good or bad, the band is stuck with the ethos surrounding their origin (and recall, they did play for free on the FExp tour to placate the unruly crowds...so they may have been motivated by money to some degree, but they generally came off as a band less inclined in that direction, however just, than most).

No sane person begrudges them making a living.

However, I think this is the place to debate the different means by which this has been approached by band members...and here there are facts that suggest Bob has handled this poorly (this is MY opinion) relative to the others, so I am unclear why people think Bob is unfairly singled out.

What's the evidence?

I will NOT dredge up the interviews, but the gist of it can be summarized (and this was discussed at great length here and elsewhere, so I am not making this up, TRUST me).

When the SBDs were pulled, Bob was all for it, whereas Phil was not.

Everybody recall that?

When the discussion turned nasty, Phil and Barlow came out as less inclined to pursue this approach, while Bob and one or both drummers inclined the other direction.

Bob in the end, using the "kids in college" line, necessarily became the fall guy for the attacks.

To me, the fact that we keep going over it simply ignores this progression during 05-06.

Am I wrong about this?

Now, this in no way means you aren't a jerk for wanting something for free, BUT it does suggest the band members themselves viewed this differently. And that's a perfectly legit arena for discussion...

And however Bob expresses it is his biz, but clearly one can say "I like Phil better than Bob cause he wanted to let me have SBDs, whereas Bob's a jerk cause he didn't", right?

My major issue has been we don't really know what's the BEST biz practice to generate more income for them, and whether Bob's approach vs Phil's is the better for that end.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

You may be right. It just looks to me kinda like Weir opened his mouth and said this, so he'll be the one everyone rags on about it till eternity. The others may not have been initially in favor, but I somehow doubt they're turning down the money. There's always gotta be a scapegoat (and some people volunteer for the job).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

And Phil had this to say:

Phil Lesh
***1/5/06***
I had two conversations with Cameron Sears, our CEO at GDP, regarding Archive, starting when our material first showed up there. I told Cameron that I was fine having the audience tapes up there, but that he should talk to everyone, including Bob Hunter and John Barlow, regarding the soundboards. A year later when I had not heard anything about the boards, I mentioned to Cameron that I felt by not doing anything we were making a decision about the boards and that I was fine with that. Again I urged him to talk to everyone. I was caught by complete surprise when, right before Thanksgiving, the recordings were pulled. I feel that Bobby was not updated properly and unfairly took most of the heat. A lot of our business disagreements are the result of poor communication from advisors. Bobby is my brother and I love him unconditionally; he is a very generous man, and was unfairly judged regarding the Archive issue. -Philzone

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Yep; that reinforces the perception I think (ie, ironically, Phil had to say that cause even though it might not be fair, he understood why Bob was taking the heat, and he wasn't).

In sum, though, I think everyone forms an opinion of their fav stars, and we are "lucky" to have had more interactions, first or second hand with "ours" over 40 yrs than with say, Michael Jackson or Kobe. And, I think there's no getting around the following, right or wrong:

Folks (heads) generally think of Phil as a nicer guy, now, than Bob. Maybe based on bad secondhand info, etc., etc., but wouldn't you agree, in a superficial "do you like your heros?", that would be the majority vote of a given group of heads?

That's my sense. Trivial, but perhaps true. That's why I sorta expect Bob to take some shit; Kobe too...Kareem as well. But not so much Steve Nash or Leo Kotke.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? -LEO!

Just an aside on Leo - he pissed me off royally.

I've bought his discs for years (vinyl, own 'em all) and saw him in concert 3 times. Then he released one album on CD that could not be ripped! Encoded with anti-piracy encryption. He lost more than one fan right then. He failed to see the writing on the wall. I give props to the GD for satisfying, in their own stumbling, inimitable way, the expectations of their fans - knowing that the scene was far beyond manageability.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? -LEO!

Damn...shoulda known he'd be on the outs with someone! I won't defend him; now, has anyone seen Steve Nash near an elem school?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? -LEO!

Yep, Nash was betting Lance Stephenson a joint for every 3 pointer he could hit from behind the line in the gym at Saint Anthony's .

Kryie Irving. I'm telling you now, Kyrie Irving....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 16, 2010 6:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I guess Bob can take it.
If Bob were really such a prick as he's made out to be, would Jerry have loved him so much?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Better not ask Jerry's daughters that...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 4:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Okay. I hereby vow not to take part in any further "Is Bob a jerk" threads!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Aug 16, 2010 3:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I remember this and what is kind of annoying is that Phil never says that he was against what happened, just that he was surprised by it. Barlow was the only one who came out against what happened. Everyone else sat on the fence and seem very happy with the compromise that resulted in the current agreement with IA yet Bob still gets the heat for allowing us to listen to all the music we could ever hear.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Well, I heard stronger language on Phil's part from the friend that coached his kid...he said a bunch of stuff about how great LMA was, and it should stand as it had for yrs, and so on...I think he back peddled later, but I still have a distinct impression of Bob having poorer pub rel's skills than Phil...that's all I've been trying to convey to JOTS; no judgment on it being their $ but I think there are good and bad ways to present it...

This post was modified by William Tell on 2010-08-17 05:14:55

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Aug 17, 2010 3:40am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

In this case it was easy to have better pub relationship skills, right? Bob made the first move Phil just had to respond diplomatically. Wasn't it also Bob who had to let the people go from GDP right around then? Not a great time to be Bob. I am just not sure why it matters whether Bob has good PR skills or not. Doesn't he have enough goodwill in the bank that even if he says something that is not well-constructed PR, the fans wont turn on him instantly. You think of the scene in FE and I think of the end of Bertha on 8-6-71 when Bob tells the taper where he should move if he wants to get a really good recording. In the end, Bob's only bad PR move is that he isn't Jerry.

As for Phil, he did say that he used the archive for research when he was writing his book so I am sure he was disappointed when everything was pulled and there was no streaming.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 17, 2010 6:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Yeah, I guess it's partly the issue with any public fig; what have you done for me lately?

This one was such a loaded issue too; though all of us might agree with the "we had it free for so long" why complain, I do understand those that view it differently.

Put it all together and it was a powder keg, and Bob stepped in, as you say, while others hung back.

But, on other fronts, you know the often shown photo of Bob's grimace while giving the finger? I am sure there are photos of Phil doing the same, but I've never seen em. Is it cause folks hate Bob and pounce? Or, is Bob more of a jerk? I am just asking...

I would say in the Bay Area folks did really feel Bob was originally a really nice, sweet kid, but as he aged (just like me) he got to be a bit cranky (when they met him, etc). Phil seemed to develop more grace and humility. Again, these are second hand observations. But, I do believe there is a very small potential kernal of "truth" to the underlying likes and dislikes...And that Jerry may have just always been given a pass.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

"In the end, Bob's only bad PR move is that he isn't Jerry."

I think that is it EXACTLY. Some people are simply mad at Bob because Jerry's dead.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Aug 17, 2010 10:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I was resisting adding to this bloated discussion but I think you're right. I think there are more than a few morons around who would quite happily sacrifice Weir if they thought it would get Garcia back. Symptomatic of this is the whole idiotic nonsense that gets spouted about Weir's beard - how DARE he wear a beard? Is he trying to be JERRY? Sacrilege! Burn him! It makes me spit, frankly.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Morons is right.
Any time the discussion turns to facial hair, you know it is not going to be rational.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I think Rob just called me bloated...damn; how can he know from so far away? This is exactly how rumors get started.

I know how Bob feels now, and I am not going to take it lying down.

As for my facial hair, I do talk about it, but only in the third person ("look what my beard did during dinner, dear"...which only a wife with a bearded spouse will understand). So, you are probably right--nothing rational about it.

Finally, I hadn't considered the "transference hypothesis" (survivors guilt, whatever) that folks hate Bob cause Jerry died and he lived...interesting; I do maintain that a smallish Jerry could be hiding in Bob's current beard, however impolite that may sound.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I fear this will be another launching pad for beard jokes, many of them involving Chuck Norris.

As for the subject of why Bob gets repeatedly thrown under the bus, I think the whole Jerry Died First thing has some merit. Unfortunate, but human nature is more often reflexive and not always as morally upright as we would like to believe.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Now I was trying to resist actually using the phrase "survivor's guilt" - and you've even upped the ante with "transference"!! :)

I do have a heavily bearded spouse, actually but now that you mention it he doesn't talk about his beard.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

You mean your beard tried to eat your dinner before it made it to your mouth?

Did you know that Frank Beard is the only member of ZZ Top who doesn't have one?

Did you know there's even a beards.org? Don't look - you'll feel your lifeforce slipping away...

Did you know I'm a cantankerous bastard with increasingly low tolerance levels for beardy blatherings?

Did you know you can safely ignore my intemperate fulminations?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 11:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

"You mean your beard tried to eat your dinner before it made it to your mouth?"

Please - can we not get too much more explicit about this :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadpolitics Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

No comment on the SBD issue, but have you heard this Dark Star? It may not make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck but its got a nice mellow vibe. One of the rare recordings where TC is nicely audible... at least in the first section of this Star. http://www.archive.org/details/gd1969-08-16.sbd.gmb.95857.flac24

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I think it's about more than JUST money myself. Just the attitude in general.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

You mean tween Bob and Phil? I tend to agree Phil has a better "attitude" about life in general, but this is a real stretch on my part based on his apparent "love of life" due to all his brushes with mortality, etc. And I don't know Bob as well (at all really), but he has come off poorly in some interviews I've seen. I know Phil better thru friends that have met him, had him to their houses, discussed kids and marriage, etc., etc. Still second hand.

Or do you mean relative to jerks that want something for free and those that are willing to pay?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

the latter - hearnig the whining ass entitlement mentality crowd. What a massive slap in the face that must be to hear people bitching about what is yours.

and I'm tired of hearing about the whole 60's bullshit, or what would Jerry Do. As if human nature and reality never existed

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I hear ya, J; of course, you know me--rehashing is what I do, eh?

I will say that the "60s imagery" is a powerful thing, even when just a myth (eg, did you catch the thread about the # of heads that "toured"? How it's widely accepted we all did?).

As a case in pt, I can tell you that when the DEAD tried to start a record company to increase qual control, and reduce the price of the product for fans (in 73-74 they sent me this info; I was completely taken in--I didn't view it as a marketing ploy but the simple, sincere truth...all the mailings we rec'd as members of the fanclub), we fans in the Bay Area viewed it as HUGE. One myth of the 60s was coming "true".

It was a direct consequence of the generalized view of the 60s (stick it to the corporate goons; do it right, do it locally, do it your own way with your own people, and quality will come thru).

Now, the tragic irony that it failed miserably, and they had to go back to "the man" to get things going again is beside the point.

At the time, we used that example, and I still believe it to be true today, that the DEAD were by those actions, the BEST band around because: they recognized what was wrong with the system, and they valued the input of their loyal fans, and they kept them informed in a family friendly fashion, blah, blah, blah.

This is NOT what Bob did lately, so I don't really get upset by folks that say "hmmm, Bob sounds like a bit more of a money grubbing jerk than he used to" when he says what he said, and Phil says what he said (even though they both agreed they deserve the $ [which I do too], it came out differently?).

Anyhow, my point is, THIS band DID represent something different, and it was "60s BS" to some degree that set them apart.

I really believe that. But I am a 60s bullshitter from the word go, no matter how conservative I've become. Myths die hard.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

yeah but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think Bob's animosity or attitude is based soley on money, I think he's offended by people's attitude. And I don't see anything wrong with that nor do I see it in conflict with how they were in the 60's. Heck look at Festival Express, they weren't down with all the people expecting shit for free.

And face it - What other band has that many soundboards on the archive? Even new bands only allow AUD. Come on. I can't believe they allowed that much to be out there for so long.

Have you read the story about Jorma? He wont even let people torrent, not even old stuff that's already been out there. For money? Maybe. But when you hear the story it sounds like he got royally pissed off at some peoples arrogance.

Personally I completely see why Bob would want to tell some people to fuck off.

And I agree with BD's opinion 100%

Jerry always got and gets a pass and Jerry was non confrontational to the expreme of being a major buck passer and cop out. Come on let's get real.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Bottom line the sixties are over!!!

I see it just the opposite (not the opposite from you, JOTS; other way round) - I think some of the whinging that every last note of the music isn't free forever is a slap in the face to the band. They gave more music away free than any other band ever! thousands of times more. How about "thank you for all the free music" not "why isn't the rest of it free, too"?

This post was modified by ringolevio on 2010-08-17 16:47:54

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 17, 2010 9:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

exactly ringo! to compalin after all we've already been given for FREE seems very assholish to me

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Oh yeah--I get what you're saying on that front; it has to get old, intolerable, etc. So, I don't have any real issue with Bob being cranky. And you're certainly right about Jerry getting a pass.

I am just trying to explain why Phil has a better standing than Bob; may not be fair, but I think it's explicable based on their respective behavior, even if they both said the same thing in the end, right?

I think the most telling thing about Bob in the FExpress as to how he DIDN'T necessarily buy into a "classic 60s mythology" were his comments about the cop that got hit...maybe his affluent upbringing set him apart from the start (JK...but hey...maybe we're on to something).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

yeah but he was right what he said about the cop. Bet he didnt deserve that at all.

the whole thing with Phil seems weird to me. so how'd it get decided? if there's only 4 then he apaprently was the only who voted not to pull them

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 3:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I agree bout Bob and the cop; just shocked me to hear him say it, and even thought Jerry gave him a look like "what? you're giving a cop the benefit of the doubt?" but I could've imagined it!

And yeah, the vote biz--I was even thinking Phil hung back, allowing it to happen, and others to take the fall, but now I am starting an anti Phil rumor worse than the "kids in college" biz...

One last thought: I think it's always a mistake to use the "truth" (college expenses) in such settings...better to say some BS about making ends meet, or using it for charity or what have you...I am not in favor of deception, but lets imagine he has a million dollar mortgage, it just wouldn't be good press to say "I got a $10k monthly house payment to make!" or whatever...Or, just quote the standard line about "artists and their due" in a soft sell fashion, etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 3:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

why not tell the truth? that seems weird to me.

like the whole see ya comment? anybody worth having in the aud is still going to be there, anybody still boycotting? who needs em?

I think you imagined that about Jerry especially because i dont think they show his face in that seen at all except to hear his voice say " must we tolerate yellow journalism?"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 4:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Ah, look closely at Jerry right as Bob is saying it, you see his head turn, and so on...but, as you say, hard to know.

Well, I trust you do agree that even if the truth was you had a $10k per month mortgage you wouldn't mention it to starving DEAD heads, right? You don't really believe you should ALWAYS tell the truth, I am sure of that--you have kids, so that's out the window...there's a time and place for everything, right?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 5:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

so you're equating Dead Heads with kids? where you have to spare kids the truth sometimes because they can't understand?

I better spare the truth of what I REALLY think I guess

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

It was an analogy. I have spared my mother the truth, and my father, and my students, and so on...

Are you really saying you haven't? Or that you don't see the necessity of it from time to time?

But, forget that since the present example is trivial "biz school/marketing 101": you really think that under the circumstances, Bob should have said whatever the "truth" was as to why he needed money? If it had been for plastic surgery? Weight training lessons? Etc, etc.

I don't think you really believe that makes good sense...it's not a big deal to omit that "truth" under those circumstances, but having said, "I have kids in college", you now have to grant folks may have been bothered by an apparently well off person suggesting he was that hard up...

That's all I am saying. Many of the poorer DEAD heads I knew didn't even consider kids getting to college except on scholarships and such, working two jobs, blah, blah, blah.

So, I don't begrudge Bob the money, but biz school 101 sez you don't justify it to the masses with a comment that may offend. And having done so, you take some crap for it.

We got way off track, but you asked why Bob took shit and Jerry and Phil didn't; I tried to answer that question. To me Bob had/has less tact.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

It just seems so "Bobby"-like -- making off-the-cuff comments like a kid. Still staring in wide-eyed wonder at what the band unleashed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I think that's true; I mean, "less tact" also translates broadly to "he thought short-shorts were great" and jumping about like a rock star and all. To me, that was just fun and part of the charm, but it really seemed to aggravate some folks. So you combine that with the fact that he always seems to have been taken less seriously as a musician, and you have The Bob Target. Then he takes an unpopular stand and defends it with some half-baked, off-the-cuff, not-exactly-PR-savvy comment, and the arrows start flying.

Btw do you have a link (or some search terms) for the interview you've been talking about with the cop comment? I'd be curious to see that ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

It's in the Festival Express movie, which is one of the better rock docu flicks...great footage of the boys.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Ah. Well, I'll put it on my To See/Get Later List. Netflix doesn't exactly deliver here :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

AR , it's not the same , but search youtube > ' festival express ' . All sorts of good things there .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Aug 16, 2010 9:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

ah-ha! Now we agree. Bob had less tact. To that I won't disagree at all. But maybe perhaps he figured anyone grown up would understand his honesty and the folks that wouldn't he doesn't give a rats ass if he loses their business. This was kind of the impression i got with the original see ya comment

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Aug 16, 2010 12:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

It's all good because Phil and Bob love each other:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGLJhv9L4k0

Monetize that!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 16, 2010 2:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

That was puke inducing . You need a viewer warning for stuff like that , BD .

And the day is coming ( sadly ) when we monetize it all . Then these discussions will be moot . Too busy farming , hunting and fishing .

Here is your $1,000,000,000,000 change for that drum stick Mr. Hart . Oh , Mr. Hart ?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Just saw this. Oh. My. Lordy. I think Phil and Bob were doing an admirable job of restraining themselves. Really, those cream pies should have been flying. ("What's a Deadhead?" "I just saw Hair, so now I'm having flashbacks." "When Jerry Garcia died in 1985 ..." GAK!)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 16, 2010 8:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

AR , AR - How you doin ? How are the naan shop and the rooster's treating you ?
I am shocked that you made it that far . That's combat pay .
I just found out today , that BW is married , and has kids . And that the Garcia estate came in at at 160,000,000 ( in 1995 dollars ) . That's what my 'exile ' time , and my almost complete lack of caring about their personal lives gets me . I think he has been married for 10 years or so . Did he let himself go after he was married ?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 16, 2010 10:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

There are two roosters, actually. You can tell the one apart because I've nicknamed it Old Jerry. It's crow really sounds like that now-classic description: Fozzie Bear Choking on a Hot Dog.

I think Pat Kelly posted that Jerry's estate actually came in at $10 million, which is what I recall as well. That's a huge disparity. The $160m figure ... is that what it's valued at since then, or did an extra zero get added, or what? I mean, that's an AWFULLY large number, even for Jerry. Brent's estate was surprisingly small, if you read the articles from the time. Of course, I'm sure no one is hurting financially (I've seen one band member valued at $35 million, which could be totally off but does sound reasonable.)

Anyway, to me, downloading is a good business decision because it builds loyalty and hence brings in more fans and money, much like the taping, but hey, I don't claim to have much of a business mind ... that's just my own feeling.




This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2010-08-17 05:54:08

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

I didn't even know BW was married . I could be off by a ton , or a million or ten , or twenty . Please out there , I really don't want to know , and of course , do what you will .
The farm has an insane hen ( self laying ). It's named Henrietta . All white . It thinks peoples feet are food . First time visitors are usually good for a laugh , and a little soft shoe , trying to get away from her . I've been saying for years we ought to make some chicken soup from her bones . My mother loves that hen , though .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 16, 2010 11:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

There's a great classic short story that I read years ago, told from a hen's perspective as she flees from pursuers. I remember part of the point being that no one can tell what she's thinking, because she has an expressionless hen face (the point being deeper than just hens). I'd love to find it again, and I bet your chicken farmin' family would enjoy it. Many points if you (or anyone) know what I mean from this absurdly vague description ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Chickens are some freaky animals . Look in their eye .
I am not a chicken fan . I'm sure it's mutual . At times I've put the black hood on , so to speak .
Have a great Nepalese day AR . Way late .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 17, 2010 12:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Well, they're little mini T-Rexs, after all.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 17, 2010 2:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Hey Rose--you continue to surprise and impress; are you "biologically" inclined career wise if you don't mind my asking?

And yes, you summed up one of the pts I used to make all the time about this whole issue...most of the internet gurus I've heard discuss DL'ing (& music sharing in general) seem to think you should just let them do it, the more the better, for building your fanbase, etc., and that it can't be stopped (sharing, etc.), so all the ones that file lawsuits, etc., are adopting poor biz practices (again, this is NOT saying they don't own their music and can do what they want, etc., just that it's a no win situation for them--the bands).

But, like you, I dunno really...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Aug 17, 2010 6:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Isn't it clear Bob and Phil differ on all this? Or did?

Thanks, WT, but I'm definitely not a biologist! I work as a writer. I've done stories on fair use and know some people who are kind of cutting-edge in studying digital media practices, but mostly I think it's just an extension of something I've seen in the work world: the more freedom you give people to telecommute, do flex time, be casual at work, etc, the happier they are and the more loyal and creative and effective they'll be. The tighter you make things and the more you "crack down," the less you actually achieve -- particularly in the 21st century, when the boundaries are really getting gray and the "digital generation" is just not going to put up with strict lines.

DL'ing would seem to follow the same principles. More freedom and openness, more happy folks and more loyalty. Plus, in effect, it's viral marketing. The Dead stumbled onto that remarkably early on, without, I think, having the slightest clue (except perhaps intuitively) that it amounted to "marketing."